Talk:April 2018 attack on dissent

From A Closer Look On Syria
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This is a talk page for discussing April 2018 attack on dissent. For sources, claims and narratives see the main page. (To see what is hot, see recent changes)

Response

  • In lieu of a well-written response, few points here.
    • (1) Academic freedom: it does look bad. In comparison with Russia, there was a lot of freedom in late USSR and especially in the early 90's Russia, with Sakharov back to Moscow, etc. Closer to the case at hand, Leonid Rink, Vladimir Uglev , Mirzoyanov were all able to publicly express sharply critical of the government opinions (going too far in Mirzoyanov case, revealing classified information, but still treated quite mildly and allowed to leave). Vladimir Uglev (now retired) maintains strongly pro-opposition views, without being called names, and expresses his professional opinions, deviating from those of the government, in national and British mass media. There are signs of academic freedom situation deteriorating in Russia as well, with Western ways and means followed by the state and academic leaders, but not as bad as seen here; at the level seen here, it is in the domain of fringe lowlife bloggers who may be accusing academics of treason and 5th column membership on the basis of foreign trips or grants. That does not (yet? predominantly?) reaches state levels. What's here, brings about some memories of articles in Pravda in Stalinist days (luckily, those memories could be an exaggeration, or Chekhov's farce in place of a tragedy).
    • (2)As for myself, I am very far from being pro-Assad, against dictatorship in general, and I am not pro-Putin. I do not support Russian involvement in Syria. I would not have a particular problem with a fair power play, like a military response to a genuine weapons of mass destruction crisis, or a power play on the premise that Assad+Iran endangers regional security. - This is all without Russia in the picture, which, as a major nuclear state, and as a value system, makes everything much more complicated and much more dangerous. But that does not make me a supporter of idiotic fakes played in media, and unfairness and idiocy in general. If Western population is in state of mind which cannot support a frank military power play, I disagree with them being led into it by faking; something else needs to be done instead, eg developing international and intercultural mechanisms and all other things which are fair and genuine. Instead of fake wars, it's better to invest in knowledge and well-being of the society. Quite frankly I do not see those fakes at all helpful in promoting any fair agenda, neoconservative agenda including. (Compare with the public perceptions of the war in Iraq years after, which shrunk to the Colin Powell's UN, vial to see the point). --Resup (talk) 18:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Subsequent attacks

Chris York (Twitter) Was instrumental in attempts to get the media on trial event shut down. Kamm and Higgins also pleased with themselves over this --Diagonal (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Dr. Tim Anderson is 'suspended' by the University of Sydney. His version of the event, displaying the teaching materials in question is here.
    Those materials clearly violate what is known as the 'working definition of Antisemitisim'.
    Also, in my view, those are unbalanced (if any armed force performs an expedition into densely populated area, majority of armed force losses will be military--namely among those soldiers involved, while heavy weapons use unavoidably will lead to civilians killed, not intentionally so. However the way question is posed, + suggestive graphics, indicates that to get a good grade, it may be beneficial to choose a particular partisan standing in delivering the answer).
    However, those facts need to be considered in broader perspective, taking into account, in particular, Dr. Tim Anderson research on Syria (sample), his other work at the University, possible differences of opinions involved, and issues of 'free speech', 'open debate' 'academic freedom' , and the Academic Freedom. --Resup (talk) 20:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, it is from a lesson about critical thinking, with one thing to learn "Be wary of moral equivalence claims, carrying in-built assumptions". So maybe the Israel flag with the part swastika over it is an in-built test for the students, with the professor not going on before the lesson is learnt and the collage talked about. This is how I could defend it, but I don't know nearly enough about Anderson to judge if this is a likely interpretation. But it is so comically contradicting to the material the lesson deals with that I think he deserves the benefit of the doubt here as a seasoned academic. I see he was asked about the intention on twitter but hasn't yet answered. --CE (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
He has previously been under attack e.g. after Khan Sheikhoun incident - a personal response by him, April 2018 - also for his past conviction. His book 'The 'Dirty War on Syria' is extensively referenced - probably useful for people looking at Houla, East Ghouta incidents and the wider context of the conflict's coverage - although its clear where his sympathies lie. I think he has issued corrections when he put out an inaccurate infographic (White Helmet rescue victim photos)on social media. However, an unprofessional error of judgment with regards to flag on the infographic, especially when so many keen to discredit him. --Diagonal (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2018 (UTC)